further, after he is already endued with a penitent and humble frame of feeling?" The whole tenour of my letters is against the affirmative of this question. But it may deserve something more explicit:

I have more than once known those in deep distress advised to persevere under the idea that the Dispenser of pardon may be testing their patience; or, in other words, waiting until they acquire this virtue, as a preliminary to the reward of acceptance. This is not only injudicious, but it is unscriptural. And, instead of proving an incentive to perseverance, as it is intended to be, it is discouraging in the extreme. The unregenerate sinner can achieve nothing to entitle him to favour: And there is no intermediate state, in which he can ever be supposed, between ruin and grace. Nor can any withholding, on the part of God, when the sinner approaches aright, detain him in the former of these conditions. If it were otherwise, and we were allowed a supposition on this subject, then the death of the sinner, in that intermediate state, would leave the fault of his final rejection from Heaven at the door of the Author of his being.

The examples which you have quoted in

"the Syrophenician woman," "the importunate widow," and the "neighbour soliciting bread," were never designed to encourage such a conclusion; nor have they any reference whatever to the case. The trials which God may suffer his people to undergo, while he supports them at the same time, and improves some grace within them to their ultimate good, is no indication that he ever would stand back, a single moment from the penitent sinner. To require immediate and unconditional submission on our own part, and to tender the promises in return, and then to delay their fulfilment, has never been the manner of the Divine dealing. The prayer of the true penitent is answered at once, although it may not be in a way perceptible to himself, nor with the immediate consequences to his own mind, which he had fondly anticipated. We must learn to distinguish between the manner and the thing: between an utter refusal and the mode of conferring the boon. I should not hesitate to say to any complainer on this subject, that either his prayer was already answered, or the fault was entirely his own. Nor can we escape this inference while we consider the Creator consistent with him

Y

self. I can not, therefore, restrain an expression of regret when I read a contrary sentiment in works expressly designed to relieve or assist the Inquirer. Any question of this nature seems so clearly and unequivocally settled in the Word of God, that it is a matter of surprise how it should involve a doubt in any other mind, than one harrassed by its fears, and confused by its perplexities.

Adieu, Dear Sir-may the spirit of prayer richly abound in you, and may you realize, in its exercise, the full assurance of grace, mercy, and peace! Truly yours, &c.

LETTER XII.

A common error adverted to again-An evil from Theological distinctions -Different kinds of repentance-The Scriptural distinction-Sorrow does not constitute repentance-The perversion of legal sorrow to a false hope-Examples-The error reproved in Scripture-Its cause-Causes leading to repentance-Conviction of sin-Why not to be effected without Divine aid-Looking to Christ a means of repentance-The process -Evangelical sorrow follows-Difference between counterfeit and true repentance-Conclusion.

MY DEAR SIR,

THERE is one error which I have had reason several times to mention, as possessing a more pervasive influence in the mind of the Inquirer than any other: I refer to the idea that there is a certain something to be obtained by him before he ventures to approach the Redeemer with the hope of mercy, or even the hope of an audience. And this error creeps into his very notion of the Christian graces. It puts a construction on the Divine language foreign from its true import, and renders reflection upon it the means of increasing confusion. You have known the application of this remark to the duty and doctrine of repentance. And I have frequently seen the

convinced sinner keeping aloof, and at least half satisfied with himself in doing so, until he may be able to ascertain whether he has evidence of true repentance; without which he would conceive all application nugatory, and accompanied with which he would be assured of a favourable answer. The amount of all which is, that he desires to be a Christian before he asks the Divine influence, which is to render him such-that he would have evidence of being saved before he solicits salvation. This practical contradiction is too flagrant to need a comment.

Another evil on this subject arises from those theological distinctions respecting the nature of this grace, with which the Inquirer may often be more entertained than edified. A clear view of repentance, and of its place in the covenant of God, is certainly important. But the adoption of metaphysical distinctions, and a nice and accurate discrimination of the consecutive order of certain causes and effects, is rather an accomplishment in the Theologian, than an advantage to the Inquirer. Instead of reviewing the past to discover the evidence of a direct approach to repentance, or to institute a comparison of such workings with